The stunning reversal by one of the Republican Party's leading champions of immigration reform and Hispanic outreach, at least in part, comes down to a colossal political miscalculation.

When Bush and co-author Clint Bolick were writing the book during the 2012 presidential campaign, the GOP was veering far to the right. Republican nominee Mitt Romney had staked out a hardline position against illegal immigration, blasting his primary rivals as pro-amnesty and promoting "self-deportation" for undocumented workers. Bush sent the book to the printer before Christmas -- weeks before a handful of Senate Republicans embraced a sweeping overhaul that, like the proposals backed by Bush's brother, former President George W. Bush, would allow illegal immigrants to earn citizenship.

In other words, Bush's party moved a lot faster than the book-publishing world.

"Gov. Bush has always wanted to move the party towards a bigger solution that would provide residency and a path to legal citizenship, but he knew it would require getting Republicans to the table," Republican strategist Sally Bradshaw, Bush's former chief of staff, said in an email to National Journal. "This book and his recommendations reflect that situation and his attempt to get the GOP talking about a possible solution. The focus of this effort is legal residency and a completely redesigned immigration system."

In an interview Tuesday morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Bush started backpedaling off his opposition to citizenship in his book. "If you can craft that in law, where you can have a path to citizenship where there isn't an incentive for people to come illegally, I'm for it," he said. "I don't have a problem with it. I don't see you how you do it, but I'm not smart enough to figure out every aspect of a really complex law."

The bottom line is that in Bush's zeal to kickstart an immigration reform debate in the GOP, he apparently laid the groundwork for his own flip-flop. While he's arguing against citizenship for illegal immigrants in his book because it would give them a leg up over those who applied legally, last year in an interview with Charlie Rose on CBS, he said, "You have to deal with this issue. You can't ignore it, and so either a path to citizenship, which I would support -- and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives -- or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind."

Despite Bush's intentions to help pave that path, his position on citizenship in the book makes him appear to be at odds with his brother and his former protégé and longtime ally, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who came out in favor of a path to citizenship in January along with a bipartisan group of senators. Exit polls that showed seven of 10 Hispanic voters rejected Romney have pushed Republican Party leaders to rethink the party's immigration policy.

"He sent the book to the printer at a time when he was anticipating the direction of the debate tilting against citizenship. It is clearly contrary to what he has said before," said Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the liberal Center for American Progress. "In hindsight, Americans have always judged severely efforts to deny citizenship to classes of people. Is this really the GOP's path out of the political wilderness?"

What's more, Bush's revamped position on citizenship looks like the maneuvering of a potential presidential candidate who wants to outflank Rubio and appease the conservative, anti-amnesty contingent that dominates GOP primaries. "It is absolutely vital to the integrity of our immigration system that actions have consequences -- in this case, that those who violated the laws can remain but cannot obtain the cherished fruits of citizenship," the book says. "It must be a basic prerequisite of citizenship to respect the rule of law."

But the former governor also stakes out a position far to the left of those voters on border security that would only complicate a potential presidential bid. In the book titled Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution, Bush is skeptical of the demand from many conservative Republicans -- including Rubio -- that illegal immigrants cannot seek legal residency until the border is secure. In fact, Bush echoes President Obama by pointing out that the border security is tighter than ever.

"Demanding border security as a prerequisite to broader immigration reform is a good slogan but elusive on the details and measurements," the book says. "What exactly is the magic moment we must wait for before we can fix the broken immigration system?"

Bush is likely to face intense questioning about his changed position on citizenship this week as he embarks on a national book tour and gives a highly anticipated speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington later this month.

Denying that Bush had reversed course, spokeswoman Jaryn Emhof said the book does not "prohibit" illegal immigrants from ever becoming citizens, though it would make the route quite arduous by requiring them to go back to their home country and apply legally.

"The governor's goal is to create a path to bring individuals out of the shadows," Emhof said in a written statement. "I would point out that current law requires legal residency to be achieved before citizenship. I would also point out not everyone who is undocumented wants to become a citizen."

Under the principles outlined by the bipartisan group of senators, including Rubio and Arizona Senator John McCain, illegal immigrants could begin working toward citizenship after paying back taxes, passing a criminal background check, learning English, and holding down a job.

"I think Jeb's book could make it more difficult for Senate Republicans to sell citizenship to their caucus," said Becky Tallent, director of immigration policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former McCain staffer. "Jeb has always been considered a centrist on immigration."

But while some immigration advocates are worried that Bush's stance will give cover to wary Republicans and blow up any deal that includes citizenship, it reflects a stark political reality. House Republicans are unlikely to accept any proposal that helps illegal immigrants become citizens, unless they are young people in college or the military. Democratic Party leaders have insisted on a much broader pathway to citizenship, but they will be hard-pressed to reject a deal that at least bestows legal status.

"There will not be a path to citizenship bill coming out of the House," said Al Cardenas, a Bush ally and immigration reformer who is chairman of the American Conservative Union. "There seems to be growing support on the GOP side of the House for precisely the solution that Gov. Bush prescribes."

"I think he's being really careful because he is trying to create space for fellow Republicans to do the right thing," said Clarissa Martinez De Castro, director of immigration and national campaigns at the National Council of La Raza.

Proposals favored by the Obama and the bipartisan group in the Senate would require illegal immigrants, after passing the hurdles to legal residency, to go to the back of the line for citizenship papers. Yet by rejecting a pathway to citizenship, Bush is reinforcing the perception that reformers would give special treatment to illegal immigrants. The confusion reflects the issue's complicated political calculus.

"He may be trying to walk a fine line with all of the sensitivities around this issue, and it certainly demonstrates once again how very unsettled the Republican Party is internally," said Doris Meissner, senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank. "Even for somebody like Bush who had staked out a position a while ago, it shows Republicans are still searching for where they should be on this issue."

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.